Overview
Practice Understanding Arguments and Reasoning in Plato’s Phaedo
Plato’s dialogue Phaedo presents Socrates’ final conversation with his friends on the day of his execution. In this part of the dialogue, Socrates is speaking with Simmias about what it means to be a true philosopher and how a philosopher should think about death. As you read, pay attention to the reasons Socrates gives for the philosopher’s distinctive attitude toward death, and how these reasons connect to the goals of philosophical inquiry. You will use the passage to explain Socrates’ view on what it means to be a philosopher, and how that view guides ethical reasoning.
quote
"In fact, Simmias, he said, those who practice philosophy in the right way are in training for dying and they fear death least of all men. Consider it from this point of view: if they are altogether estranged from the body and desire to have their soul by itself, would it not be quite absurd for them to be afraid and resentful when this happens? If they did not gladly set out for a place, where, on arrival, they may hope to attain that for which they had yearned during their lifetime, that is, wisdom, and where they would be rid of the presence of that from which they are estranged? Many men, at the death of their lovers, wives or sons, were willing to go to the underworld, driven by the hope of seeing there those for whose company they longed, and being with them. Will then a true lover of wisdom, who has a similar hope and knows that he will never find it to any extent except in Hades, be resentful of dying and not gladly undertake the journey thither? One must surely think so, my friend, if he is a true philosopher, for he is firmly convinced that he will not find pure knowledge anywhere except there. And if this is so, then, as I said just now, would it not be highly unreasonable for such a man to fear death? It certainly would, by Zeus, he said. Then you have sufficient indication, he said, that any man whom you see resenting death was not a lover of wisdom but a lover of the body, and also a lover of wealth or of honors, either or both."
— Plato, Phaedo, 67e–68c
In 200–400 words, you should:
- Explain either (a) Socrates’ conception of philosophy and the soul, or (b) the reasoning by which Socrates supports his view that philosophers do not fear death.
- Incorporate 2–3 Unit 1 terms by defining each term in your own words and show how the term helps clarify Socrates’ position in this passage.
- Quote or paraphrase at least one key sentence from the passage and explain its meaning in your own words.
- Briefly explain how this view of philosophy could influence a person’s moral decisions (e.g., decisions about courage, integrity, justice, power, wealth, or safety).
What are related Unit 1 terms?
- Argument
- Conclusion
- Dialectic
- Ethical dilemma
- Ethical reasoning
- Eudaimonia
- Philosophical inquiry
- Premise
- Principle of Charity
- Socratic Method
- Soul
- Value
- Wisdom
Step 3: Practice Justifying Moral Judgments in Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica
Thomas Aquinas wrote the Summa Theologica in the 13th century as a systematic account of Christian theology and moral philosophy. In the passage below, Aquinas considers whether the principles of natural law are the same for everyone. As you read, pay attention to how Aquinas describes the different levels of moral reasoning and how he explains cases in which moral guidance might seem to change depending upon circumstances. You will use the passage to explain Aquinas’s view about which parts of morality are universal, and which can vary. Keep in mind that there is more than one way to reasonably understand this passage. The focus here is not on getting the correct answer, but on how well you justify your interpretation.
quote
"It is therefore evident that, as regards the general principles whether of speculative or of practical reason, truth or rectitude is the same for all, and is equally known by all. As to the proper conclusions of the speculative reason, the truth is the same for all, but is not equally known to all: thus it is true for all that the three angles of a triangle are together equal to two right angles, although it is not known to all. But as to the proper conclusions of the practical reason, neither is the truth or rectitude the same for all, nor, where it is the same, is it equally known by all. Thus it is right and true for all to act according to reason: and from this principle it follows as a proper conclusion, that goods entrusted to another should be restored to their owner. Now this is true for the majority of cases: but it may happen in a particular case that it would be injurious, and therefore unreasonable, to restore goods held in trust; for instance, if they are claimed for the purpose of fighting against one's country. And this principle will be found to fail the more, according as we descend further into detail, e.g. if one were to say that goods held in trust should be restored with such and such a guarantee, or in such and such a way; because the greater the number of conditions added, the greater the number of ways in which the principle may fail, so that it be not right to restore or not to restore."
— Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I–II, Q94, Article 4
In 200–400 words, you should:
- Summarize Aquinas’s distinction between universal first principles (moral truths that apply to everyone) and variable, context-dependent applications (how those principles may lead to different actions in specific situations).
- Use one to two metaethical terms from Unit 2 to explain what Aquinas’s passage implies (e.g., natural law theory, moral realism, universality, objectivity).
- Include at least one quotation or paraphrase from the passage to justify your response. After quoting or paraphrasing, clearly explain what the line means and how it supports your interpretation (for example, how it shows something is universal, or how applications vary by circumstance).
- Differentiate between how principles are applied in particular from claims about whether moral truth itself varies as you interpret the passage.
What are related Unit 2 Terms?
- Antirealism
- Conventionalism
- Descriptive moral relativism
- Divine Command Theory
- Emotivism
- Ethical naturalism
- Moral fact
- Moral property
- Moral realism
- Natural law (natural law theory)
- Objectivity
- Prescriptivism
- Realism
- Relativism
- Subjectivism
- Universality
Step 4: Reflect on Your Own Ethical Thinking
Reflect on how Units 1 and 2 have influenced your own approach to ethical thinking. In 200–400 words, you should:
- Describe at least one way that studying philosophical methods in Unit 1 could change or impact how you think about moral questions (e.g., learning to identify premises and conclusions or to avoid fallacies). Use at least one Unit 1 term accurately in this explanation.
- Describe at least one way that studying metaethics in Unit 2 could change or impact how you think about disagreement about moral issues in your life, workplace, or community (e.g., learning about moral realism or relativism). Use at least one Unit 2 term accurately in this explanation.
Step 5: Review and Submit Your Work
- When you quote from the passages or tutorials, use quotation marks and provide simple in-text citations following APA format.
- Before submitting, review your work according to the rubric.
- Save your file as a .doc or .docx and upload to the Touchstone submission area.